IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0076165.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Land Gini Coefficient and Its Application for Land Use Structure Analysis in China

Author

Listed:
  • Xinqi Zheng
  • Tian Xia
  • Xin Yang
  • Tao Yuan
  • Yecui Hu

Abstract

We introduce the Gini coefficient to assess the rationality of land use structure. The rapid transformation of land use in China provides a typical case for land use structure analysis. In this study, a land Gini coefficient (LGC) analysis tool was developed. The land use structure rationality was analyzed and evaluated based on statistical data for China between 1996 and 2008. The results show: (1)The LGC of three major land use types–farmland, built-up land and unused land–was smaller when the four economic districts were considered as assessment units instead of the provinces. Therefore, the LGC is spatially dependent; if the calculation unit expands, then the LGC decreases, and this relationship does not change with time. Additionally, land use activities in different provinces of a single district differed greatly. (2) At the national level, the LGC of the three main land use types indicated that during the 13 years analyzed, the farmland and unused land were evenly distributed across China. However, the built-up land distribution was relatively or absolutely unequal and highlights the rapid urbanization in China. (3) Trends in the distribution of the three major land use types are very different. At the national level, when using a district as the calculation unit, the LGC of the three main land use types increased, and their distribution became increasingly concentrated. However, when a province was used as the calculation unit, the LGC of the farmland increased, while the LGC of the built-up and unused land decreased. These findings indicate that the distribution of the farmland became increasingly concentrated, while the built-up land and unused land became increasingly uniform. (4) The LGC analysis method of land use structure based on geographic information systems (GIS) is flexible and convenient.

Suggested Citation

  • Xinqi Zheng & Tian Xia & Xin Yang & Tao Yuan & Yecui Hu, 2013. "The Land Gini Coefficient and Its Application for Land Use Structure Analysis in China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-10, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0076165
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076165
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0076165
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0076165&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0076165?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kamanga, Penjani & Vedeld, Paul & Sjaastad, Espen, 2009. "Forest incomes and rural livelihoods in Chiradzulu District, Malawi," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 613-624, January.
    2. Lissa M Barr & Robert L Pressey & Richard A Fuller & Daniel B Segan & Eve McDonald-Madden & Hugh P Possingham, 2011. "A New Way to Measure the World's Protected Area Coverage," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(9), pages 1-4, September.
    3. Shlomo Yitzhaki, 1979. "Relative Deprivation and the Gini Coefficient," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 93(2), pages 321-324.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Benra, Felipe & Nahuelhual, Laura, 2019. "A trilogy of inequalities: Land ownership, forest cover and ecosystem services distribution," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 247-257.
    2. Peter Narh & Cosmas Kombat Lambini & Matthew Sabbi & Van Dien Pham & Trung Thanh Nguyen, 2016. "Land Sector Reforms in Ghana, Kenya and Vietnam: A Comparative Analysis of Their Effectiveness," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-17, March.
    3. Ferrara, Carlotta & Carlucci, Margherita & Grigoriadis, Efstathios & Corona, Piermaria & Salvati, Luca, 2017. "A comprehensive insight into the geography of forest cover in Italy: Exploring the importance of socioeconomic local contexts," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 12-22.
    4. Yuanyuan Yang & Shuwen Zhang & Dongyan Wang & Jiuchun Yang & Xiaoshi Xing, 2014. "Spatiotemporal Changes of Farming-Pastoral Ecotone in Northern China, 1954–2005: A Case Study in Zhenlai County, Jilin Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-22, December.
    5. Jain, Charu & Saxena, Disha & Sen, Somnath & Sanan, Deepak, 2023. "Women’s land ownership in India: Evidence from digital land records," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    6. Mengyao Ren & Yaoyu Lin & Meihan Jin & Zhongyuan Duan & Yongxi Gong & Yu Liu, 2020. "Examining the effect of land-use function complementarity on intra-urban spatial interactions using metro smart card records," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 1607-1629, August.
    7. Jiale Liang & Sipei Pan & Wanxu Chen & Jiangfeng Li & Ting Zhou, 2021. "Cultivated Land Fragmentation and Its Influencing Factors Detection: A Case Study in Huaihe River Basin, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-25, December.
    8. Luca Salvati & Ilaria Tombolini & Roberta Gemmiti & Margherita Carlucci & Sofia Bajocco & Luigi Perini & Agostino Ferrara & Andrea Colantoni, 2017. "Complexity in action: Untangling latent relationships between land quality, economic structures and socio-spatial patterns in Italy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-17, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hugh Gravelle & Matt Sutton, 2009. "Income, relative income, and self‐reported health in Britain 1979–2000," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 125-145, February.
    2. Baiyegunhi, L.J.S. & Oppong, B.B., 2016. "Commercialisation of mopane worm (Imbrasia belina) in rural households in Limpopo Province, South Africa," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 141-148.
    3. Alain Chateauneuf & Patrick Moyes, 2005. "Lorenz non-consistent welfare and inequality measurement," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 2(2), pages 61-87, January.
    4. Oded Stark & Franz Rendl & Marcin Jakubek, 2012. "The merger of populations, the incidence of marriages, and aggregate unhappiness," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 331-344, April.
    5. Oded Stark & Wiktor Budzinski, 2021. "A social‐psychological reconstruction of Amartya Sen’s measures of inequality and social welfare," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(4), pages 552-566, November.
    6. Pouliot, Mariève & Treue, Thorsten, 2013. "Rural People’s Reliance on Forests and the Non-Forest Environment in West Africa: Evidence from Ghana and Burkina Faso," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 180-193.
    7. Andrew E. Clark & Conchita D'Ambrosio, 2018. "Economic inequality and subjective well-being across the world," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2018-170, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    8. Clément Bellet, 2017. "Essays on Inequality, Social Preferences and Consumer Behavior," Sciences Po publications info:hdl:2441/vbu6kd1s68o, Sciences Po.
    9. Duclos, Jean-Yves, 2006. "Liberté ou égalité?," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 82(4), pages 441-476, décembre.
    10. Hanna Dudek & Joanna Landmesser, 2012. "Income satisfaction and relative deprivation," Statistics in Transition new series, Główny Urząd Statystyczny (Polska), vol. 13(2), pages 321-334, June.
    11. Mugido, Worship & Shackleton, Charlie M., 2019. "The contribution of NTFPS to rural livelihoods in different agro-ecological zones of South Africa," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    12. Meyer, Maximilian & Hulke, Carolin & Kamwi, Jonathan & Kolem, Hannah & Börner, Jan, 2022. "Spatially heterogeneous effects of collective action on environmental dependence in Namibia’s Zambezi region," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    13. Maite Blázquez & Elena Cottini & Ainhoa Herrarte, 2014. "The socioeconomic gradient in health: how important is material deprivation?," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 12(2), pages 239-264, June.
    14. Maite Blázquez Cuesta & Santiago Budría, 2014. "Deprivation and Subjective Well-Being: Evidence from Panel Data," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 60(4), pages 655-682, December.
    15. Oded Stark & Walter Hyll & Yong Wang, 2012. "Endogenous Selection of Comparison Groups, Human Capital Formation, and Tax Policy," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 79(313), pages 62-75, January.
    16. Pak, Tae-Young, 2023. "Relative deprivation and financial risk taking✰," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 55(PA).
    17. Porro, Roberto & Lopez-Feldman, Alejandro & Vela-Alvarado, Jorge W., 2015. "Forest use and agriculture in Ucayali, Peru: Livelihood strategies, poverty and wealth in an Amazon frontier," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 47-56.
    18. Maite Blázquez & Santiago Budría, 2018. "The Effects of Over-indebtedness on Individual Health," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 227(4), pages 103-131, December.
    19. Andrew E. Clark & Conchita D'Ambrosio, 2017. "Living conditions and well-being: Evidence from African countries," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2017-209, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    20. Stark, Oded, 2012. "Integration, social distress, and policy formation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 318-321.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0076165. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.